Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice does not play a direct role in individual international child abduction cases in Poland. Whether a return order is made in Poland in respect of a child who has been taken to Poland, or what action should be taken in Poland in relation to enforcement of a return order, are matters for Polish courts and the relevant authorities to determine.

However, my officials regularly engage on international child abduction with other States, including discussions with Polish authorities on the subject of enforcement procedures. This has included a Workshop hosted by the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, together with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and other key authorities in England and Wales, to discuss international child abduction with Polish officials and enhance cooperation in this area.

The Ministry of Justice does not play a direct role in individual international child abduction cases in Poland. Whether a return order is made in Poland in respect of a child who has been taken to Poland, or what action should be taken in Poland in relation to enforcement of a return order, are matters for Polish courts and the relevant authorities to determine.

However, my officials regularly engage on international child abduction with other States, including discussions with Polish authorities on the subject of enforcement procedures. This has included a Workshop hosted by the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, together with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and other key authorities in England and Wales, to discuss international child abduction with Polish officials and enhance cooperation in this area.

International parental child abduction cases involving Poland are dealt with under an international and domestic law framework which is entirely separate from the framework for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. When a court is dealing with a case under a particular framework, only those matters which fall to be considered under the relevant framework are applicable.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.

The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.

The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.

When the previous (incorrect) answer was provided, it was the result of a simple search being run against criteria in the service management system and the result published.

When the corrected response was provided, it was a result of a manual search through records ensuring that duplicates were removed, and then checked against the ID numbers of assets known to be present.

Improvements in prison management arising from the Managing Women in Crisis Working Group have not yet been shared more widely, but H M Prison & Probation Service will shortly be publishing its 12-month progress report to H M Inspectorate of Prison’s thematic report ‘Time to Care: What helps women cope in prison’, setting out the measures it has put in place.

The cumulative length of service, in years, held by public sector band 3-5 prison officers is given in the following table. Figures are given as at 31 December each year.

Table 1 – Cumulative length of service¹ of public sector band 3-5 prison officers² in England and Wales, as at 31 December each year from 2010 to 2025³

Notes:

1. The length of service in HMPPS is calculated from most recent hire date. Where staff have transferred in from another Government Department or have transferred in through HMPPS taking over a function, length of service is calculated from entry to HMPPS

2. Band 3-5 Officers includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officers (incl. specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officers, and Band 5 / Custodial Managers

3. The dates reflect the Full Time Equivalent and cumulative years of service at that particular point of the year.

I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice does not hold policy or operational responsibility for health care in police custody settings. However, in order to resolve any lack of clarity that may exist, the Department will shortly respond formally to the coroner on that basis.

I welcome the positive work happening in Greater Manchester to support women involved in the criminal justice system, and the work of women’s community sector organisations that provide crucial infrastructure for the criminal justice system.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) currently funds specialist support for women on probation through Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) delivered by third sector organisations, including providers of women’s centres. HMPPS is committed to ensuring CRS contracts deliver holistic, gender-specific support that meets women’s needs, informed by service users, stakeholders and providers.

The Ministry of Justice is providing a further £7.2 million in 2025-2026 to support the women’s community sector. This funding is aimed at building sustainability, expanding interventions and increasing capacity, including residential provision where needed. Funding for future years is subject to internal allocations.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, recommendation 24 of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. This will involve reviewing the effectiveness of existing legislation which criminalises the possession and publication of illegal pornographic material both online and offline. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

As the review is focused on the criminal law set out above, it will not appraise the adequacy of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation.

There is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This position has been confirmed by the Court.

Significant claims in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the targets set out in the Practice Direction. Other cases in the Planning Court are managed in accordance with the arrangements which apply to claims in the Administrative Court. The Planning Liaison Judge oversees claims in the Planning Court and ensures these are progressed efficiently.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the courts.

This Government has set a clear goal to reduce the number of women going to prison, with more managed in the community. The Sentencing Act represents a generational shift in reforming sentencing, offender management, and community supervision. The presumption for courts to suspend short custodial sentences, along with the increased use of suspended sentences, and increased flexibility to defer a sentence for longer, is expected to reduce the number of women going to prison.

The Government takes the recovery and enforcement of financial penalties seriously and remains committed to ensuring penalties are paid. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service uses robust methods to do so including taking money from an offender’s benefits or salary and seizing and selling goods. In addition, the court can send offenders to prison for non-payment.

HMCTS is investing over £14 million to replace an outdated IT system used to support the collection and enforcement of financial penalties. Although the functionality of the modernised system will initially be largely like for like, it will provide HMCTS with a stable foundation for more sophisticated technology features to be delivered in the future to provide further improvements to increase collections.

For national security reasons, we are unable to share the names of the industry partners.

Personal representatives (the umbrella term for anyone legally responsible for administering a deceased person’s estate) have a statutory duty to administer the estate lawfully. They must act in beneficiaries’ best interests and keep clear, separate estate accounts as a matter of good practice. Accurate records are essential because the court may require, sworn on oath, a full inventory of the estate and a detailed account of the administration. Any interested party can apply for such an order, enabling scrutiny of how the estate has been managed and informing whether further action against the personal representative is appropriate.

The Government is not aware of any problems with personal representative accountability mechanisms and has no plans to change them.

There is no compulsory will registration system in England and Wales, though testators may voluntarily register a will with certain public or private bodies. The Principal Registry offers a public scheme allowing wills to be deposited and stored for a £23 fee, with a certificate issued

The Law Commission considered compulsory registration as part of their review of the Law of Wills but concluded it would add unnecessary complexity to the will‑making process as well as raise uncertainty over the validity of unregistered wills, including reduced flexibility for testators making wills near death.

There is no maximum time limit in which personal representatives must distribute an estate after probate has been granted.

A personal representative is under a statutory duty to administer the deceased person’s estate according to the law and without undue delay. He or she must safeguard the estate and, with due diligence, collect and realise the assets, pay the deceased person’s debts, and distribute the legacies and the residue of the estate to the beneficiaries entitled in accordance with the will. Personal representatives can be held liable if they mis-administer the estate.

There are legitimate reasons why it may take time to fully distribute an estate. For example, it may require the sale of a property, the settling of tax issues or administering assets outside of the UK. Other reasons that personal representatives may delay the distribution of the estate include waiting out the time limit for family provision claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 and for creditors to bring claims against the estate.

If beneficiaries have concerns about the administration of the estate, they can make an application to the court to compel a personal representative to provide an inventory and account of their administration of an estate. In addition, applications can be made to remove and replace a personal executive where there are grounds to do so.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Christine McDonald on 26 July 2024. The response is available on the Chief Coroner’s website.

HMPPS is now preparing a response to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Death report.

We have introduced a period of enhanced management assurance for all external escorts. Under these strengthened measures, a manager of the same grade or a more senior grade is required to check the application of restraints prior to an escort and ensure additional restraint arrangements are utilised where necessary. In addition, all operational staff who may be involved in an escort have been required to complete refreshed competency activity.

The High Court has been clear that the making of an injunction to grant lifelong anonymity to protect the identity of a now adult person convicted of a serious offence as a child, should be exceptional. In practice, such injunctions are made very rarely.

The court will consider whether there is a real and immediate risk of serious physical harm or death or if the offender’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights justify making the injunction as a necessary and proportionate step. In doing so the court will balance these factors against the right of the media and others to freedom of expression.

An application can be made to the High Court to end an injunction. To be successful, it must be demonstrated that the conditions justifying the making of the injunction are no longer in place.

This Government has no current plans to establish periodic review procedures for these injunctions.

The Prevention of Future Deaths report following the death of Stephen Sleaford was addressed to the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State for Prisons. The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded on their behalf because the matters of concern raised in the report were of an operational nature.

No separate response from the Ministry of Justice is considered necessary.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death on 20 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Daniel Beckford on 8 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.

An initial response to the public consultation is due to be published in April, followed by a full report on the consultation in late summer 2026. This report will include all formal responses to the consultation, and the names of the organisations that responded.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Christopher MacGillivray in August 2024. This response addresses the matters of concern raised in the report.

The Ministry of Justice sent a preliminary reply, making a point of clarification, to the HM Senior Coroner for Greater Manchester on 3 October 2024, following the Prevention of Future Death report issued after the death of Hayley Cowan. No further action has been requested of the Department at this time.

The formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody is due to be completed by 20 March.

Reports of internal investigations of this nature are not normally published.

The formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody is due to be completed by 20 March.

Reports of internal investigations of this nature are not normally published.

I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to all parents bereaved by baby loss. Bereavement is never easy, but the loss of a child is unimaginable, and we recognise the profound and lifelong impact this has on parents and families.

As I have previously set out in correspondence with the Right Honourable Member, the wider landscape of maternity investigations has continued to evolve since the publication of the consultation on the coronial investigation of stillbirths in 2019 and the factual summary of responses published in 2023.

Most recently, this Government commissioned the independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care led by Baroness Amos. As outlined in the investigation’s terms of reference, it will, amongst other issues, look to consider the potential role of coroners in the investigation of late term stillbirths (37 weeks or later).

The Department has not made a formal assessment of the delay in publishing a decision in this area. It is important that the Government’s published position on coronial investigations of stillbirths is informed by any findings and relevant recommendations the independent investigation makes, and more broadly supports the most effective model for maternity investigation, including on vital issues such as learning and accountability. We intend to communicate our position on this issue after the investigation has published its final report in June 2026.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the SRA’s performance to ensure it operates effectively and in the public interest, including through performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing supervisory engagement. As the minister with responsibility for legal services I meet regularly with the SRA to hold it to account for its performance and am happy to rase the issue of waiting times for complaint resolutions at future meetings.

Where allegations of solicitor misconduct are raised with the SRA, it assesses the complaint to determine whether it meets the threshold for formal investigation. The SRA publishes information about its performance, including data on the timeliness of investigations and enforcement activity, through its corporate reporting and Board papers. It has reported an increase in complaints about solicitor misconduct and has taken steps to manage this, including increasing investigative resource and seeking to improve the quality and timeliness of its investigation work.

Within the framework of regulatory independence, Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Justice engage frequently with the SRA on matters relating to the regulatory framework. This has included engagement on the steps the SRA is taking to improve the timeliness of its investigations.

On 9 June 2025, the Government announced a balanced package of measures to strengthen independent regulation of the enforcement sector to protect people in debt, whilst ensuring fair and effective enforcement. As part of this package, reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Procedure will be made to improve the experience of those facing enforcement action, as well as uplifting the enforcement fees High Court Enforcement Officers can charge to support sector sustainability.

The Government intends to bring forward legislation to implement these reforms when parliamentary time allows.

The Government has agreed that when the UK participates in an EU instrument, programme or other activity, the UK will make a fair financial contribution to cover the costs of our participation. No decisions have yet been taken as to whether the UK will make additional financial contributions to the European Union as a consequence of the new provisions set out in the Common Understanding of 19 May 2025 on a) reinforced law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and (b) judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.

Any decisions on such matters will be assessed in accordance with Government Accounting Officer rules, including value for money. The UK Government remains committed to close and effective collaboration with EU and EFTA countries in these matters.

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases.

The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC) measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases to cases.

Sir Brian’s Review gave a ‘conservative’ estimate that trials without a jury will make hearings at least 20% faster. This assumption was reached through quantitative analysis and workshops with HMCTS operational experts and engagement with judges. The Impact Assessment details the methodology used to reach this estimate. The assumption is also consistent with international evidence: data from New South Wales shows an average 16% reduction in trial length for judge-only trials, rising to around 29% for complex cases.

The package of reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are designed to free up Crown Court capacity so that the most serious cases can be put before a jury more quickly, reducing delays for victims and witnesses.

The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division or judge-alone for technical and lengthy cases. Re-allocation of these cases may be done on the papers, ie without a hearing.

The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.

There will be no right to appeal against an allocation decision or order made to hear a trial by judge alone. Parliament has long held that decisions about mode of trial (e.g., allocation decisions in the magistrates’ court) are not normally subject to appeal given the need for procedural finality and avoiding delay in cases.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) works to ensure its facilities comply with equalities law, in relation to the interpretation of sex under the Equality Act 2010.

HMCTS is presently awaiting updated cross-government guidance from the Office for Equality and Opportunity.

The Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) published its findings on 22 May 2025, and the previous Lord Chancellor welcomed the recommendations and accepted the majority of them in principle. The Sentencing Act takes forward many of the ISR recommendations and it received royal assent on 22 January, and the first tranche of measures will come into effect on 22 March. We are continuing to consider how we take forward the ISR's recommendations that do not require legislation.

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament